Miltenberger v. Spaulding
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. To hold the drawer, demand must be made, or due diligence exercised to make a demand. As to what is due diligence is a question of law; but there is no universal rule. It depends altogether upon the circumstances of each case. (1 Par. Bills, 443 ; Plahto’s Adm’r v. Patchin, 26 Mo. 389.) The presentment of this bill of exchange was sufficient.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. To hold the drawer, demand must be made, or due diligence exercised to make a demand. As to what is due diligence is a question of law; but there is no universal rule. It depends altogether upon the circumstances of each case. (1 Par. Bills, 443 ; Plahto’s Adm’r v. Patchin, 26 Mo. 389.) The presentment of this bill of exchange was sufficient. The demand by the notary’s clerk must be sufficient here if it was in accordance with the uniform usage there. (Cribbs v. Adams, 13 Gray, 597 ; Nelson v. Totteral,' 7 Leigh. 179 ; Atwell v. Grant, 11 Md. 101; Chitty…
1Opinion of the CourtBay, Judge
This was a suit by the endorsees of a foreign bill of exchange against the endorsers. The acceptors resided in the city of Baltimore, and the demand was made by the-clerk of the notary public ; and one of the questions presented by the record is, whether such a*-<Jemand can be made by the clerk of a notary. This bill was drawn in Missouri upon parties residing in Maryland, and is therefore placed upon the footing of a foreign bill, for in this respect the several States of .the Union are considered as foreign to each other. Gilmer, the notary public who protested the bill for-nonpayment,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chenowith & Co. v. ChamberlinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1845
3Cited by1 opinion
- Commercial Bank of Kentucky v. . VarnumNew York Court of Appeals · 1872